Turnovers are player problems not coaching problems

[droopdog7]

You conveniently missed the point. Did JJ's Miami teams turn the ball over?
We're not talking about winning and losing, although Jimmy's Miami teams made the playoffs.
We're talking about whether coaching plays a role in a team's turnover. It does. Preventing turnovers is something coaches teach, some better than others.
You can argue to the nth degree and stumble upon an example that doesn't fit, but it's not coincidental that some teams turn the ball over more than other teams. And that has to do with players AND with coaching.

Well first of all, I have seen no data on whether Jimmys teams turned the ball over anymore than Garrett’s teams. Anybody can make a statement without support and pretend it is correct.

Second, anyone can pick one single stat (assuming it were true) and pick THAT one as the key to attack one coach over the other. So it’s about the final result for coaches. It’s about winning and losing and trying to microanalyze the true impact of the coach is mostly pointless.

Jimmy deserves all the praise in the world for assembling and coaching a SB winning team. But in the end the players play. You conveniently comment on Switzer. How could such a terrible coach win a SB if coaching was everything?

 

[tyke1doe]

Well first of all, I have seen no data on whether Jimmys teams turned the ball over anymore than Garrett’s teams. Anybody can make a statement without support and pretend it is correct.

First, I made a specific reference to the 1992-93 playoffs and the 1994 NFC Championship game. You can go look at the stats from the playoff games to discover whether there were turnovers or not.

Second, anyone can pick one single stat (assuming it were true) and pick THAT one as the key to attack one coach over the other. So it’s about the final result for coaches. It’s about winning and losing and trying to microanalyze the true impact of the coach is mostly pointless.

It's not just a single stat. It is a stat from an IMPORTANT game/games. I can give you ANY election stat. However, the stats from a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION are going to be more significant because more is at stake. We don't necessary remember a turnover in the preseason or even a regular season game, depending upon the magnitude of the game. We DO remember a turnover or two or three in, oh, say, an NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME!

Jimmy deserves all the praise in the world for assembling and coaching a SB winning team. But in the end the players play. You conveniently comment on Switzer. How could such a terrible coach win a SB if coaching was everything?

I didn't conveniently comment on Switzer. I DELIBERATELY commented on Switzer.
Second, understand, again, the context. I'm talking about turning the ball over. I'm not talking about necessarily winning a game. I know you don't want to follow that nuance, but it is important to the context and structure of this discussion.
Third, I know players play. And coaches coach. And coaches should coach players on how to hold on to the ball.
Fourth, I didn't say coaching was EVERYTHING. I said coaches play a role in turnovers based on how they instruct and teach their players and teams. I, then, gave you examples of coaches who were very meticulous in instructing their teams to avoid turnovers.
Your inability to comprehend my point may be because you wish to expand my argument from its context and add your own interpretation into the discussion. Just saying.

 

[droopdog7]

First, I made a specific reference to the 1992-93 playoffs and the 1994 NFC Championship game. You can go look at the stats from the playoff games to discover whether there were turnovers or not.



It's not just a single stat. It is a stat from an IMPORTANT game/games. I can give you ANY election stat. However, the stats from a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION are going to be more significant because more is at stake. We don't necessary remember a turnover in the preseason or even a regular season game, depending upon the magnitude of the game. We DO remember a turnover or two or three in, oh, say, an NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME!



I didn't conveniently comment on Switzer. I DELIBERATELY commented on Switzer.
Second, understand, again, the context. I'm talking about turning the ball over. I'm not talking about necessarily winning a game. I know you don't want to follow that nuance, but it is important to the context and structure of this discussion.
Third, I know players play. And coaches coach. And coaches should coach players on how to hold on to the ball.
Fourth, I didn't say coaching was EVERYTHING. I said coaches play a role in turnovers based on how they instruct and teach their players and teams. I, then, gave you examples of coaches who were very meticulous in instructing their teams to avoid turnovers.
Your inability to comprehend my point may be because you wish to expand my argument from its context and add your own interpretation into the discussion. Just saying.

First, I made a specific reference to the 1992-93 playoffs and the 1994 NFC Championship game. You can go look at the stats from the playoff games to discover whether there were turnovers or not.



It's not just a single stat. It is a stat from an IMPORTANT game/games. I can give you ANY election stat. However, the stats from a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION are going to be more significant because more is at stake. We don't necessary remember a turnover in the preseason or even a regular season game, depending upon the magnitude of the game. We DO remember a turnover or two or three in, oh, say, an NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME!



I didn't conveniently comment on Switzer. I DELIBERATELY commented on Switzer.
Second, understand, again, the context. I'm talking about turning the ball over. I'm not talking about necessarily winning a game. I know you don't want to follow that nuance, but it is important to the context and structure of this discussion.
Third, I know players play. And coaches coach. And coaches should coach players on how to hold on to the ball.
Fourth, I didn't say coaching was EVERYTHING. I said coaches play a role in turnovers based on how they instruct and teach their players and teams. I, then, gave you examples of coaches who were very meticulous in instructing their teams to avoid turnovers.
Your inability to comprehend my point may be because you wish to expand my argument from its context and add your own interpretation into the discussion. Just saying.

I get your point; all of them. I simply don't buy them. You have causation mostly wrong. You're trying to pin single game events even on things that are separated by a few degrees. Things that are much more complicated.

The turnover battle is absolutely associated with wins and losses. That has often been identified as one of the bigger factors. So it's clear; turning the ball over increases the odds of losing. Okay, so? You can't look at a single game and make more out it. Did we turn the ball over because of bad luck? Because of missed calls? Because we were playing Aaron Rodgers (and were pressing)? Because we couldn't stop the run and knew we needed to score points? I mean, there are countless reasons for turning the ball over in single game before you get to the coach.

Heck, even if you look at an entire season the connection between turnovers and coaching is not so direct. I will put it this way. Teams that don't turn the ball over are generally good. That's it. That's the connection. No other variables needed. Next year, that very same team might not be so good in plus minus; thus they may not be as good. Did they forget how not to turn it over?

 

[tyke1doe]

I get your point; all of them. I simply don't buy them. You have causation mostly wrong. You're trying to pin single game events even on things that are separated by a few degrees. Things that are much more complicated.

Causation isn't the correct term. I'm not saying coaching CAUSES turnovers or the lack of coaching CAUSES turnovers.
I'm saying coaching plays a role in turnovers because a coach's responsibility is to oversee all training that pertains to that which happens on the field. Does a coach cause a touchdown throw? No. But a coach can work with a player to make sure that player exercises proper form when he (the quarterback) throws the ball that results in a touchdown.
My approach is more PROCESS than causation. Therein is where you err.

The turnover battle is absolutely associated with wins and losses. That has often been identified as one of the bigger factors. So it's clear; turning the ball over increases the odds of losing. Okay, so? You can't look at a single game and make more out it. Did we turn the ball over because of bad luck? Because of missed calls? Because we were playing Aaron Rodgers (and were pressing)? Because we couldn't stop the run and knew we needed to score points? I mean, there are countless reasons for turning the ball over in single game before you get to the coach.

I didn't say turnovers aren't associated with wins and losses. I said that wasn't my focus. My focus SPECIFICALLY on whether coaches play a role in turnovers. And I gave example where that is the case. Some teams can overcome turnovers and still win the game. Some teams cannot. There are multiple factors that play into whether a team wins with multiple turnovers or loses with multiple turnovers. You may wish to argue that. But that was not the context in which I offered my perspective.

Heck, even if you look at an entire season the connection between turnovers and coaching is not so direct. I will put it this way. Teams that don't turn the ball over are generally good. That's it. That's the connection. No other variables needed. Next year, that very same team might not be so good in plus minus; thus they may not be as good. Did they forget how not to turn it over?

First, how do you know they're not so direct? You don't know what teams are doing to practice to prevent turnover. Heck, we don't even know what's going on in the clubhouse to make one team dysfunctional and another functional. So it's easy to say coaching is not so direct. That is an argue borne of limited knowledge.
Second, you're arguing variables, or the lack thereof. I'm arguing process. I'm not an NFL coach, but I have coached youth football. We stressed the importance of not turning the ball over and practice stripe drills among other drills to stress the importance of holding onto the ball. I would like to believe that NFL coaches did the same. Be that as it may, it is no coincidence to me that when Jimmy Johnson was coach of the Cowboys, they were efficient in the post season and protected the football. When he left, we immediately saw what happened in the 1994 NFC Championship Game. The Cowboys turned the ball over three times and were down 21-0 before the game even began. So did Troy Aikman suddenly become an awful player, or did something happen that we couldn't perceive?
Troy basically told us that when Johnson left, the team lost its discipline. Not turning the ball over is a part of DISCIPLINE. And if a coach isn't teaching his team how to hold onto the ball, he's not covering all the bases in terms of coaching. And ... it ... will ... show.

 

[Bobhaze]

Jerry said it well last week “when we plan for a game we don’t plan to turn it over at midfield twice”

If you can’t trust your all pro WR to make an easy catch, your 4th year QB to see the field and your NFL kicker to focus on FGs under 40 yards, then I don’t know what game plan you come up with.

Now defensively I think we’ve all been in agreement for years that the team is in desperate need of front line DTs. Saints showed when you can control the game with your front 4, the whole game is different. If not, then scheme better.

offensively players just have to pick it up. The plays are being called well and there’s tons of yards available but player inflicted problems are killing the team

Culture influences everything. Look at the culture Jerry has created by stubbornly keeping himself and his kids in charge of everything important. Since there’s no accountability at the top of this organization for lack of results, it infects the entire team.

Yes players cause turnovers. But the problems with this organization go a lot deeper than why we had 3 soul crushing TOs Sunday.

 

[glimmerman]

Turnovers and drive killing penalties. And drive extending penalties on our Defense.

 

[Parcells4Life]

Culture influences everything. Look at the culture Jerry has created by stubbornly keeping himself and his kids in charge of everything important. Since there’s no accountability at the top of this organization for lack of results, it infects the entire team.

Yes players cause turnovers. But the problems with this organization go a lot deeper than why we had 3 soul crushing TOs Sunday.

The top of the organization has made the most valuable franchise in the world, which is what Jerry Jr and Charlottes job is. Stephen has done a great job getting star players identified by a really good top scout Will McClay to fit under the salary cap and Jerry’s job is to keep Cowboys in the public eye.

Franchise-wise the organization is humming on all cylinders. This isn’t the Raiders.

 

[blueblood70]

Jerry said it well last week “when we plan for a game we don’t plan to turn it over at midfield twice”

If you can’t trust your all pro WR to make an easy catch, your 4th year QB to see the field and your NFL kicker to focus on FGs under 40 yards, then I don’t know what game plan you come up with.

Now defensively I think we’ve all been in agreement for years that the team is in desperate need of front line DTs. Saints showed when you can control the game with your front 4, the whole game is different. If not, then scheme better.

offensively players just have to pick it up. The plays are being called well and there’s tons of yards available but player inflicted problems are killing the team

I agree cant control TOs or Refs making bad or no calls.. its bad 2 games all around.. moving on to the Jets but the Eagles game is HUGE now..

that was so far frim an easy catch is ridiculous saying it..period Coop coming across full speed and the pass is on his back shoulder, not only does he have to slow down , but torque unnaturally to get his hands in a catchable position at his shoulder pad, add its fastball type pass, it came through enough for the tip to hit the pad and bounced..

bad pass, sorry Dak apologist has to see this happens like 3 times a game on crossing patterns, some are caught ,some are not but if he throws a better pass thats a TD , at best of Coop makes that catch, he gets tackled right there..

however I have to add this , not enough is being said about the horrible defense thats been being played, first ot was oh its not an issue giving up so many yards and long drives while we were 3-0 but against bad teams they play keep away with TOP, limits offensive drives for us and makes the bad calls or a freak TO much more enhanced because we dont have enough drives to make up for it..

36mins the last 2 games is what our defense has allowed for TOP..

Let me add this , we all wanted a more aggressive offense, better play calling , passing on first downs etc sure its been more creative ive seen the motions and better disguised sets, however this team being a run heavy TOP eating offense, with Zeke being a workhorse back , kept the scores down and we limited the others team offense.. they are doing it to us and the fact that our D now has to actually stand up and play o their own without protection from our clock eating offense,

THEY ARE FULLY EXPOSED..This Defesne is truly more responsible for the 2 losses than they are being blamed for.. I know the offense has had its issues with afew TOs etc, bad run blocking(not using Zeke as much), and without LC and smith Dak was running for his life..

However IMO the defense is much more to blame then is being talked about.. its been going on since the Rams game , they just seem out of sorts..especially stopping the run but also not getting off the field ion 3rd down against the better teams..

if this doesnt get fixed t doesnt matter what our offense does....

 

[Manster_Mash]

Everything is ultimately the coaches responsibility; that's just the way it is. Get it fixed or G T F O.

 

[Bobhaze]

The top of the organization has made the most valuable franchise in the world, which is what Jerry Jr and Charlottes job is. Stephen has done a great job getting star players identified by a really good top scout Will McClay to fit under the salary cap and Jerry’s job is to keep Cowboys in the public eye.

Franchise-wise the organization is humming on all cylinders. This isn’t the Raiders.

You’re right....The Raiders aren’t a great organization. Although they have been to a Super Bowl more recently than us. If you’re happy with the Jones family’s results on the field, I won’t argue with you.